An imbalance of subscribers among signal providers - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The funny thing about this thread is that the people who make decisions about signals are probably already on holiday ))
The funniest thing in this thread is that the people who make decisions on signals are probably already on vacation ))
p.s. By the way, the indicator "number of subscribers" does not have such a key weight in evaluating the ranking of the signal in the top. Several times in the last month the first top signal changed the value of "gain" to a sharply lower value and rolled back about twenty of the top.
I.e. to be on the first positions in TOP it is not necessary to have a huge number of subscribers - it depends on quality of signal.
On quality, yes. I reached TOP100 out of 5000 with only tests, without subscribers, for a couple of months. Then I deleted signals. The marketplace depends on purchases and the rating; the signals do not.
The number of subscribers plays up to 30% of the weight in the ranking according to our observations.
If this is the effect on ranking, add subscribers yourself. But the arithmetic here is not simple, if leaders use such a scheme, then some of their subscribers are artificial, but then your calculation of (upd)psychological influence to subscriptions is greatly exaggerated. I hope I don't get banned for such advice. Although, after a few uncovered tweaks, the influence of the number of subscribers will be removed from the rankings.
If this is the effect on ranking, add subscribers yourself. But the arithmetic here is not simple, if leaders use such a scheme, then some of their subscribers are artificial, but then your calculation of (upd)psychological influence to subscriptions is greatly exaggerated. I hope I don't get banned for such advice. Although, after a few uncovered tweaks, the influence of the number of subscribers will be removed from the rankings.
By the way, if a person stays subscribed to a signal every month, it means that they are happy with it. If they weren't, half of them would quit after a month. In other words, a large number of subscribers, and a steadily increasing number, is a good indication that expectations are being met.
The rating can be influenced not just by this number, but by the average duration of a permanent subscription in months.
From my observation of Signals -- there is clearly only one tampering visible:
-- is the ability to delete reviews and re-post them.
This scam is very actively used -- because it really gives the impression of "admiration" for the signal and it's misleading.
Re-fixing a review allows you to quickly outbid a negative review or vice versa a positive one (if the signal needs to fail).
The way I see it, if a review has been placed by someone, it can only be changed from there, it cannot be deleted. The position of the review in the list should not change (the review should not "pop up"), only the entry "changed" is added.
From my observation of Signals -- there is clearly only one tampering visible:
-- is the ability to delete reviews and re-post them.
This scam is very actively used -- because it really gives the impression of "admiration" for the signal and it's misleading.
Re-fixing a review allows you to quickly outbid a negative review or vice versa a positive one (if the signal needs to fail).
The way I see it, if a review has been placed by someone, it can only be changed from there, it cannot be deleted. The position of the review in the list should not change (the review should not "pop up"), only the entry "changed" is added.